Saturday, December 05, 2009

Tomorrow is election day in Bolivia and everyone knows that Evo Morales and his MAS party are going to win big time, oh yeah. But how should we understand such political success? Let's consult our trusty English language press sources to find out, fun after the jump!:

According to BBC correspondent Andres Schipani wrestling matches qualify for investigative journalism on the Bolivian elections. Hey BBC, if you guys pay me instead I will give you the low down on some way kinkier night "wrestling" matches going on in La Paz and call it journalism, wink.

Jim Schultz clears up any confusion out there by explaining that the Bolivian election is not about "issues"... just those outlined by his unpaid(?) assistant in the remainder of the post... like, I don't know, applying that New fucking Constitution.

Angus Reid Global Monitor: The only measure of a democratic society is whether political candidates exchange prepared remarks on TV for 90 minutes. No wonder the United States is the leader of the free world.

Annie Murphy at NPR points out that maybe programs like universal maternal healthcare has something to do with Morales' popularity. Silly hippies.

Some towel heads say the majority of Bolivians support Morales because he brings them "dignity after years of exclusion and discrimination." Or what Frank Bajak of the AP called "dismantling the last vestiges of oppression that U.N. investigators in May described as 'forced labor and servitude.'" Yawn.

Update: Simon Romero and Andres Schapini (birds of a feather flock together) team up to tell us that Morales is popular, running a booming economy, addressing social injustice and discrimination, but a authoritarian bad guy none the less because a bunch of worn out and discredited political hacks from former governments say so. What would we ever do without the New York Times?

24 comments:

"The opposition’s campaign lacks volunteers and is poorly funded while the government has thrown many resources behind the MAS campaign."

Spent all the money on foreign mercenaries--er, "volunteers", and now they don't have enough left in the coffers at the Toborochi Lodge for a real campaign, in a real election, which they're now losing for real? Boo fucking hoo. Guess that's what comes of buying high-powered rifles with fancy scopes instead of formulating a fresh platform...NOT based on balkanizing your own country.

BTW, I just love how the Irish Times couldn't be bothered to send anyone to La Paz, or Santa Cruz, to talk to anyone--just let their flunkie in São Paulo do it all by phone. And of course, he dutifully complies, printing stupid allegations from the oppos with no proof whatsoever. Anything to make those foreign assholes look innocent.

(Really looking forward to seeing them produce concrete proof that Evo somehow paid those mercenaries off to make asses of themselves and then get killed. Save the receipts, fellas, you're gonna need 'em...)

This is all FDR redux ... if you go back and look at the rightwing complaints at the time, they are identical ... and that's before the Japanese internment business, where they might have had a point, but which they all supported.

Unwritten dialogue in this blog:_ Theodoro Obiang Ngema is more democratic than Evo Morales: he got 94% of the vote when reelected, Evo just 63%... _ Evo is certain to do it better. While Obiang has an experience of more than 30 years, Evo just 4!_ Yeah! And he has learned how to smash and chase the opposition..._ We will keep helping him by labeling them as secesionists, oligarchs, neoliberals... ha ha ha!

Anonymous, you have one hell of an imagination. Also a taste for racist non-sequiturs, linking Evo to a totally unrelated African leader (presumably because all those dark people are the same--they all hate white people, at least in your fertile imagination). Is that why you're afraid to sign your name?

Ha ha ha! No... I just want to write my ideas so you can focus on the message instead on the messenger, but that seems too much for you. The point was... elections and voting are part of democracy, and often, a small part of it. Can you make an effort and think what else is needed for a leader to be a democrat?

Anon, Winning 63% in fair and free elections does say something about a population's approval of policies. Part of those policies of which you seem ignorant is the deepening of community and popular participation in government policies and the spending of public funds, it is called social control and autonomy.

The right-wing opposition are neoliberals, secessionists, and fascists. That's what they call themselves.

Oh... yes... Ahmadinejad says the same, claiming electoral votes supoprt his policies. And Hitler justified his policies almost in the same way. The point is not if you get or not the votes and support, the point is what you do with them and to what extent respecting the long term development of democracy (something more than voting, remember?).